Slashdot Mirror


Advertisers Blast Microsoft Over IE Default Privacy Settings

theodp writes "GeekWire reports that Microsoft is sticking to its decision to implement 'Do-Not-Track' as the default for IE 10, despite drawing the ire of corporate America, the Apache Software Foundation, and the FTC Chairman. Representatives of a veritable Who's Who of Corporate America — e.g., GM, IBM, BofA, Walmart, Merck, Allstate, AT&T, Motorola — signed off on a letter blasting Microsoft for its choice. 'By presenting Do Not Track with a default on,' the alliance argues, 'Microsoft is making the wrong choice for consumers.' The group reminds Microsoft that Apache — whose Platinum Sponsors have branded Microsoft's actions a deliberate abuse of open standards and designed its software to ignore the 'do-not-track' setting if the browser reaching it is IE 10. It also claims that the FTC Chairman, formerly supportive of Microsoft's privacy efforts, now recognizes 'the harm to consumers that Microsoft's decision could create.'"

38 of 558 comments (clear)

  1. Microsoft cares about privacy by PieDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't really understand what people are crying about. Microsoft has said that they will try to make IE10 better for users and this is one of the features implemented to enable that. Note that Microsoft itself owns an advertising network and is part of the advertising committee - it's that much that Microsoft wants to protect their users.

    Of course, Microsoft's actions aren't new. They have always cared about privacy. Their tracking and beta debugging has always been opt-in. This in unlike Google where you often cannot even opt-out, and it's never opt-in in any case.

    Microsoft simply cares about users privacy and advertisers are crying about it. Too bad for them, I say. Advertisers on TV manage to work without any tracking, it should work on the internet too.

    1. Re:Microsoft cares about privacy by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Ok riddle me this.....

      Exactly how would this be a detriment to the users?

      Everyone out there that objects to 'not being tracked' for advertisement purposes please raise their hands....

      [crickets chirping]

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Microsoft cares about privacy by shoemilk · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I just finished reading the letter and found it disgusting. If you took it out of "the internet" and put it in the real world things like

      By setting the Internet Explorer browser to block data collection, Microsoft’s action could potentially eliminate the ability to collect web viewing data of up to 43 percent of the browsers used by Americans.

      would read more like

      By setting the curtains to closed by default, Microsoft’s action could potentially eliminate the ability to peep through windows of up to 43 percent of the houses used by Americans.

      To top it off, they have gems like this

      A simple example of advertising in the television medium makes this point clear. If consumers were presented a choice of whether they want advertisements on network television to be broadcast, consumers would likely choose “no advertising.” But if 43 percent of American households were removed from the television advertising audience, consumers collectively would suffer because network television as we know it would no longer be a viable business model.

      They're acting like MS is installing adblock and turning it on by default. What MS is doing is making the internet more like TV, where the adds are dumb and have to be generally targeted at the type of site, as opposed to creepily personalized.

    3. Re:Microsoft cares about privacy by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ok riddle me this.....

      Exactly how would this be a detriment to the users?

      Simple: If browsers turn DNT on by default the advertisers will simply ignore it.

      (They're going to ignore it anyway, so no big loss...)

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Microsoft cares about privacy by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly how would this be a detriment to the users?

      The browser is running on a user's hardware. It should always do what the _user_ wants, not what some adspamming company wants instead. It's common sense, "my hardware, my rules".

    5. Re:Microsoft cares about privacy by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's likely in the UK and Europe that any advertiser ignoring this would be in breach of the data protection act.

      As you have to explicitly grant companies permission to store data on you should this reach the Information Commissioner's Office in the UK it would almost certainly go something like this:

      "ICO: Did the user opt in to tracking?"

      "Ad company: No."

      "ICO: Then you're guilty of breaking the data protection act, enjoy my new powers to grant 6 figure fines."

      The problem is browsers like Firefox have (as is usual for them) chosen to ignore the wishes of users and opt people in to tracking by default.

      As a tool for protecting privacy directly it's meaningless regardless of what the advertisers say they will or wont do if it can simply be ignored. As a legal instrument for making it explicit as to whether someone has opted in to being tracked or not it's great, if all browsers adopt it it may even become legally binding in some countries over time.

      This is one of those few times where Microsoft is actually doing the right thing for end users, though I suspect it's still for selfish reasons (i.e. to harm Google's ad revenue).

    6. Re:Microsoft cares about privacy by Sanity · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because it renders "Do Not Track" useless. Apache is already ignoring Do Not Track if it detects that you are using IE10. It's a boneheaded move on Microsoft's part.

    7. Re:Microsoft cares about privacy by MitchDev · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sounds more like a criminal move on Apache's part if it's ignoring what the program is set for. Whether MS turns it on by default or the user turns it on, Apache has NO BUSINESS ignoring the setting....

    8. Re:Microsoft cares about privacy by tonywestonuk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its not a crime to ignore the DNT flag. AND, there can never be a law to make it a crime, as microsoft actions have made DNT not a true indicator of a users preference.

    9. Re:Microsoft cares about privacy by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not a crime no, but is still a pretty sleazy move.

      I am not sure I agree with people who are saying that turning it on by default is not a 'true indicator of user preference' since, after having tracking explained to them, users generally are against it. So it could be argued that having 'do not track' as a default setting is more representative then having 'tracking is fine with me' be the default.

    10. Re:Microsoft cares about privacy by kasperd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly how would this be a detriment to the users?

      It undermines the purpose of the header. Consider those places where websites are legally or morally obliged to respect any user who actively asks not to be tracked. A website in such a place would have been obliged to respect the header. But by enabling that header by default, Microsoft is undermining that obligation. When the header no longer means that the user has actively asked not to be tracked, then we cannot expect websites to treat it as such. And then we are back to a situation where users have no way of indicating, that they do not want to be tracked.

      Actually I think there should have been three possible values for that header. User has opted in, user has opted out, and user has not taken initiative to change anything on his own. That would leave the default choice up to the websites, which I consider better than leaving the default choice up to the browser vendor. But more importantly, it would have made the semantics of the header slightly more clear than a boolean. And by making it possible for websites to really implement either opt-in or opt-out, then we can start pushing for sites to do one or the other. With only a boolean header and browsers behaving differently, you can't even draw a line between sites implementing opt-in and those implementing opt-out.

      But ultimately, this header is just an attempt at patching over a model, which is fundamentally broken in the first place. Cookies were too easy to set when first introduced. Browsers were not working in the best interest of the user. Websites have been allowed to abuse cookies in ways that were not in the users' interest for far too long. By now any browser trying to serve the user better will end up providing users with a bad user experience because of many sites breaking. Had browsers been more restrictive in the first place, then sites wouldn't have been using cookies in the ways they do now.

      Let's face it. Nothing is going to change unless Google, Microsoft and Mozilla can agree to move together. Because they each have such large fractions of the browser market. If they can agree on a new model, which works in the user's interest and is enforceable by the browser, then things will change.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    11. Re:Microsoft cares about privacy by Myopic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Its not a crime to ignore the DNT flag"

      That depends on whether he was speaking literally or figuratively. I immediately recognized (assumed) that tonywestonuk was speaking figuratively, in which case he is right, but if he was speaking literally (as you apparently assume) then you are right.

      "there can never be a law to make it a crime"

      Are you speaking literally or figuratively? Of course, literally speaking, there could easily be a law to make it a crime.

      "microsoft actions have made DNT not a true indicator of a users preference."

      I'd like to know how you came to this conclusion. It seems to me that almost everyone would prefer the setting and thus Microsoft's actions have set the default setting according to the majority of the actual user preference. Similarly, Microsoft also has anti-spam featured turned on automatically in its email systems based on the assumption that people don't want to receive spam. Would you decry that as a violation of "true" user preference?

      Personally I am shocked that Microsoft is taking this action. It's the number-one most consumer-friendly thing I've ever heard of them doing -- literally.

    12. Re:Microsoft cares about privacy by MitchDev · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You sound like a marketing sleaze with that attitude. DNT should be the default for all applications with users having to opt-in to be tracked. It amazes me how you think businesses are entitled to stalk people...

    13. Re:Microsoft cares about privacy by tqk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So it could be argued that having 'do not track' as a default setting is more representative ...

      It should be argued!

      It just goes to show how out of step we supposedly knowlegeable users are from the web as it is today. Apache, et al, believe it it's an advertising vehicle and that's the way it's supposed to be because a lot of the web is driven by advertising.

      The web was not designed to enable advertising. It was designed to disseminate information easily.

      This is about the first time I find myself defending Microsoft in decades. They got this right. Apache and its ilk should ask the users whether they "wish to see a richer, more personalized web experience by enabling the sending of the user's personal web surfing history to select websites" if they want this.
       
        DNT should be the default. WTF do they think DNT means, ffs?!? It means we don't like it to be a surveillance based society by default!

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    14. Re:Microsoft cares about privacy by tqk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... its a means of communicate a very specific decision on the part of the user ...

      And why is it wrong for that very specific decision to be to enable tracking?

      Because you think the web is for advertising as that's where your bread and butter is. You live by page views and banner ads and Google ranking.

      I think Apache has set the evil bit here because that's where the vast majority of its user base lies. I don't particularly care what sort of mishmash you people believe the DNT standard is supposed to be. Think back to the initial concept. "Say, some people don't like all this ubiquitous tracking. Maybe we ought to come up with something that users can do about it?" You see that as a threat to your bread and butter, and now you're bitching about someone deciding that maybe all that tracking ought to be opt-in.

      I spent years crafting a web page to disseminate things I learned to anyone who wanted to read it. It had no ads, tracked no-one, was appreciated by many, and that's how the web was intended to work.

      Now, it's been leveraged and taken over by advertisers who believe it's their personal fiefdom.

      You're evil on this one.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    15. Re:Microsoft cares about privacy by erp_consultant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right on. I ran out of Mod points or you would be getting one from me for that post. Since when is using the internet an implicit agreement to track my every move? If others don't mind then fine but I want to have the choice and the default option should always be opt out unless I specify otherwise. Microsoft did get it right here and I hope that the other browsers follow suit. I'm not the biggest MS fan either but I give them credit where credit is due.

    16. Re:Microsoft cares about privacy by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, I can't believe that anybody is bothering to defend Apache. They deserve no support in this. Either way, some users will be too lazy to switch. Therefore, the default setting should be in the best interests, and/or preferences of the user.

    17. Re:Microsoft cares about privacy by tqk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, I can't believe that anybody is bothering to defend Apache.

      Those defending Apache are their userbase; those running websites. This was never about what us mere web users wanted.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    18. Re:Microsoft cares about privacy by jimshatt · · Score: 4, Funny

      But that also means that there is no need for a DNT header, but for a DT header. Meaning: I don't know what tracking is, but after you explain it to me, I'll consider allowing you to track me.

      If you can present a very good argument as to why you should punch me in the face and take my wallet, I might allow you to do just that, but I doubt it.

  2. Harm to consumers by Vintowin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    'the harm to consumers that Microsoft's decision could create.'" The only harm is to these business' pocketbooks.. For once I'm on MS side in this matter...

    1. Re:Harm to consumers by cerberusss · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you're on the side of MS in this matter, then you are against the industry effort to create a Do Not Track standard.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    2. Re:Harm to consumers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the industry effort is opt in to privacy then damn right I am against it. If the standard demands opt in only then the standard is wrong and should be ignored and if sites decide to ignore the DNT tag then it is time for regulators to step in.

    3. Re:Harm to consumers by Millennium · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This. The only acceptable standard for sharing personal data is strictly opt-in, and defaulting to do-not-track creates such a standard. This may cause problems for some dubiously ethical targeted-advertising business models, but that is their problem and nobody else's. The Web thrived before targeting, and it will thrive after targeting.

    4. Re:Harm to consumers by neokushan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wrll see here's the thing, "Do not track" according to the advertisers doesn't actually mean "Do not track" but instead means "Don't send me targeted ads". In other words, regardless as to your choice of opting in or not, you're still going to get tracked anyway - regardless of browser.

      http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-advertising-industrys-definition-of-do-not-track-doesnt-make-sense/255285/

      The advertising group, however, defines it as forbidding the serving of targeted ads to individuals but not prohibiting the collection of data.

      If you ask me, that's the real bullshit move here, not Microsoft's.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    5. Re:Harm to consumers by terjeber · · Score: 5, Interesting

      All the people supporting MS might as well just say "DNT opt-in wasn't good enough for me

      This is wrong. MS has DNT as opt-in, and they clearly and specifically notifies the user of this on install. This has been well documented. Fielding is wrong here. Doubly so, since his patch would not only affect the people who didn't opt in (they do not exist) it would also affect people like me who specifically wanted DNT on. As I mentioned in another posting, this makes Apache (actually anyone using it with Fielding's patch) a law-breaker in Europe and liable for massive law suits. If Fielding persists, Apache is in serious trouble in Europe for sure, it would basically become an impossible to use piece of junk. I find it sad that Fielding's ego is of such a size that he can not admit he was wrong, but would rather drag Apache's name through the mud than admit as much.

  3. Advertisers are pissed by zenaida_valdez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I like it!

  4. My brain hurts! by bradley13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft doing something right, standing up to government and industry. The cognitive dissonance makes my brain hurt...

    That the FTC sees "harm to consumers" just shows that the FTC is a revolving door for industry lobbyists. I mean, it's like putting every new number on the "do not call" list, and requiring consumers to opt-in to intrusive advertising. How horrible that would be! /sarcasm

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  5. Just ask by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you first load up IE10 just ask if the user wants to be tracked. I'm sure 90% will say "no".

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Just ask by gsslay · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And I'm sure 90% will say "Huh?" and click the nearest button to make the question go away.

  6. Re:A thought ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, this is part of the 'Embrace, extend and extinguish' technique.

    1) Embrace the do-not-track standard with MSIE.
    2) Change it, so it becomes useless.
    3) Continue selling advertisement and profiling users.

    Coperate America loves Microsoft because they can continue doing what they want, since Microsoft gave them the excuse to ignore the do-not-track feature.

  7. To everyone who doesn't understand... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is not mandatory for advertisers to honour the "Do not track" flag. Internet users need to turn the option on themselves, or they have not expressed their desire to not be trackedthemselves, only to accept the default settings as Microsoft deems fit.

    If Microsoft enable it by default, it definitely won't be honoured. If it is only set by the actions of the user, it might be honoured. Now Microsoft decides to piss in the advertiser's cornflakes and expects them to still eat them. Nice job.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  8. Same lies as always by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Advertisers: This is not the "wrong choice for consumers." It's the right choice for PEOPLE. It just happens to be negative for advertisers who have grown fat and lazy using a medium that is nearly free and mostly paid for by the 'consumers.'

    Screw you all. Respect the eyes of the people using the internet. I stopped watching TV because (1) they want me to pay for it and (2) I still get my intelligence assaulted with advertisements. I pay for internet but I can control who advertises as me and I will. I don't owe you a living at my expense. Take a page out of Google's playbook -- give us some actual value and give us a reason not to block you sorry asses.

    So advertisers go out there not saying what they mean, once again. Why can't they just speak the truth?! "It hurts our marketing value." Tough shit. BUILD your market and stop riding on the coat tails of other people creating their markets.

  9. Put Yourself in the Shoes of a Greedy Rich Bastard by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'the harm to consumers that Microsoft's decision could create.'" The only harm is to these business' pocketbooks.. For once I'm on MS side in this matter...

    No, no, you see, you need to look at this from the "trickle down" aspect of economics. See, corporations are good, you need to give them a lot of money and then they in turn give that to Americans via jobs and opportunities. So the best way for them to get money is to be able to track consumers so we need to make sure that consumers can be tracked. Ideally, it would be illegal for people to own bank accounts or liquid cash and everyone would basically spend their paycheck within a few days of getting it. And they would spend it online and all the corporations would know where everyone was spending every dollar. That way, the money can work as hard as possible for society by being in corporations' pockets. And then unemployment would be really low because there would be a lot of jobs with all this extra money in corporations. Because they're undeniably good entities and they have more rights than you do because you're not supplying jobs to yourselves, the corporations are.

    Why else would it be illegal for you to record every site and place your neighbor visits without their consent but be completely legal and, in fact, desired to allow a faceless corporation to do it? Duh, because we as a completely screwed up society have given the richer entities more rights than an average citizen.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  10. Re:So you admit tracking is bad for customers by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It'll be ignored because if the majority of people fall into the category of benefiting from tracking

    Since that isn't true, the rest does not follow.

    For once I agree with Microsoft that WE DO NOT BENEFIT FROM TRACKING.

  11. Apache "Platinum Sponsors" are not complaining! by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This article is severely misleading. The supposed complaints about open web standards violations don't come from Apache Platinum Sponsors, of which one is Microsoft who is obviously _not_ complaining, and you can look at the list and decide for yourself which one's might worry about user's privacy and which one's wouldn't. The complaint is just some mail thread of Apache developers having a moan, where some of them think apparently that privacy settings shouldn't be set by default but should set knowingly by the user (and others vehemently say that this argument is nonsense). And they are _not_ complaining that "don't track" is the default, but that there is a default. And they are not complaining to Microsoft, this is just an Apache internal discussion.

  12. Re:Put Yourself in the Shoes of a Greedy Rich Bast by crtreece · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ideally, it would be illegal for people to own bank accounts or liquid cash and everyone would basically spend their paycheck within a few days of getting it.

    Close, but not far enough. The economy would benefit even more if you didn't even get the dollars in the first place. Instead, you get credit that can be used to buy products from your employer and their official partners.

    This way the company keeps all the dollars, and can use them to improve their products and services without having to show a labor cost on the balance sheet. Usage of the credits is easily tracked by the employer and partners, and the black market for drugs, hookers, gambling, or anything else that requires cash is exterminated. Everybody wins!

    --
    file: .signature not found
  13. Re:So you admit tracking is bad for customers by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Informative

    The only problem I see with MS's actions is that, according to some other posts here, the standard says that DNT must be non-default. So by making it default, they're breaking the standard. I'm all for not-tracking, but if everyone's agreed to a certain standard and that it must be implemented a certain way, then they should follow that or else try to get it changed (good luck).

    Seems to me that MS could get around this by having something in Windows that pops up the first time someone starts up IE, which asks them "do you want to enable Do Not Track?", with the "No" box being checked by default, but forcing the user to click "OK" to select this, and allowing them to select the "Yes" box first if they want.

  14. Fork by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If Fielding persists, Apache is in serious trouble in Europe for sure, it would basically become an impossible to use piece of junk. I find it sad that Fielding's ego is of such a size that he can not admit he was wrong, but would rather drag Apache's name through the mud than admit as much.

    I sense a fork coming, and rightly so.